Talk:HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: –Chase (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Hi, Crystal Clear! I believe this is the second article you've nominated that I'll be reviewing. It looks good, now time to check it against the GA criteria.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Numerous grammatical errors throughout. There are far too many to pinpoint, but just in the lead section:

   • "A majority of the albums tracks" should be "The majority of the album's tracks"
   • "several out of fifteen songs" is awkwardly worded and should be changed to "several of the album's fifteen songs"
   • "The albums songs themes" should be "The song's themes"
   • "Jackson was accused of using anti-Semitism lyrics" should be "Jackson was accused of using antisemitic lyrics"
   • "he did not mean any offense and, on mutiple occasions" the comma should be dropped
   • "one of the albums songs" should be "one of the album's songs"
   • "both of which charted within the top five on Billboard 100" should be dropped to avoid breaking up the listing off of the singles; this can be discussed in the body of the article
   • "HIStory was generally well received by contemporary music critics" "contemporary" should be dropped; the album was released in 1995, of course reviews will be from contemporary critics
   • "HIStorys least charting territory was Italy" should be changed to "HIStory's lowest peak was in Italy"

   I have reviewed the rest of the article's prose and it contains an even larger amount of issues, which is why I have chosen to not list them all off.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Is rockonthenet.com a reliable source? I'm not familiar with it but it looks rather dubious...

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   File:MJ-HIStory.jpg is too large and needs to be reduced to at least 300x300px.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   In all other respects, the article is fine. However, I can't pass this due to the extreme amount of grammatical flaws. I suggest that you request a peer review and renominate this for GA after that. –Chase (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)